OpenSSL/LibreSSL are *not* security products. They are crypto middleware. They can be used to build security products, or to build completely unsecured products. They do nothing by itself. Which is fun, because the LibreSSL Linux port actually required *extra* code so it would work with dumbass admins. And this extra code had the bug. True, Linux PID behaviour is not a security feature, but it is an entropy source. Maybe not a good one, granted. But it was used as fallback. Want to bitch about it, go ahead. It was detected, it was fixed. It is not a big deal. What is the problem?

It isn't. Apparently is an issue related to portability (aka Linux), and lack of permissions to access to proper RNGs in real-world scenarios (no access to /dev/urandom). While this is definitely a bug, it *isn't* a biggie. Its an edge case where the implementation should have been more robust, that's it.

I know. But those are only a subset of the contributors. And eg. for big, important projects, development is done mainly by companies (eg. Linux Kernel, Java, some GCC infrastructure, Mozilla, WebKit, etc), even if the commiters are listed individually. As I explained, the idea of the poor lonely guy in a basement writing code and being sued by the "big corps" is skewed from reality, and it has been for many many years.

That number may be absolute (as you're implying with the SI reference) or relative. Checking yourself into a hospital because of an anxiety attack and getting a prescription and some off time because of the whole situation is easily quantifiable. Many health-related quantifications are done in percent of an expected, well known pattern. And insurance and disability funds are paid based on that.

While I do agree with your point (relying on a 3rd party is usually not a good idea, specially when you can self-host the codebases), this is more common than you think. I myself maintain/contribute to several private (paid) repositories that rely on external dependencies from OSS projects.

Again, if someone publicly acuses you of a crime that is later proved you didn't commit, you are entitled to indemnification by damages caused to your reputation and your business/whatever. As this is not a matter of crime, it is a dispute filed on a civil court. There is no prosecuter on this. It is a dispute between two entities.

Yeah, but again, they are only a subset.

Please tell me one well-known, widespread OSS project that is completely community-driven and mostly built with unpaid volunteer work. And no, stuff like foundations don't count - they're done for tax purposes.

You are assuming a "volunteer" is not paid. In many cases, it is a false assumption.

Americans (mostly) don't use SI units. But what is the SI unit to bone damage in a broken leg? What is the SI unit for autism? What is the SI unit that measures impact of an infection on the organism? All these cases are quite easy to quantify.

So I hire an assassin. The assassin commits a crime, and I'm not responsible for inciting and paying for the execution of the crime? Wow.

Many many tools rely on automated checkout of libraries and components (under FLOSS licensing) from repositories. Having a base library or something like that unaccessible based on false pretext breaks those tools. This may translate on commercial releases that can't be done because further manual integration needs to be done. If I maintain or contribute to one of those tools, and my employer cannot deploy the latest bugfix or our platform because some monkey decided to file a DMCA, I'd bet they'll be having a bad time. And yes, again - this is quite common; OSS maintainers that are paid for what they do and integrate that work into the employer's product line. The notion that a project volunteer is a poor nerd in a basement, while romantic - is generically wrong. They exist, but they are not the majority.

A prosecuter is necessary for a public crime. And some crimes are semi-public (they require a lawyer to file the complaint).

Crossing the road is also dangerous.

Or not. You assume the system is rigged "for the big guys". I don't. In Qualcomm's case, any doubts about licensing of their driver/firmware code would have direct impact on sales. Pushing this to court while blatantly wrong would cause damage to the existing business. Qualcomm is not SCO; its not a patent troll trying to make a quick buck. As an example, I've done consulting on embedding systems for small network appliances. One of the criterias I use for component/platform selection was how "untainted" the driver is. Does the manufacturer provide a OSS-licensed reference driver? Is it known to push back or discontinue existing drivers? Are the drivers actual working drivers, or a wrapped blob? Is the licensing clear? Does it require an NDA? etc. etc. Given the rising popularity of android and linux systems, and the fact that many other companies also factor in these elements when choosing provider (not only price or funcionality), I'd be surprised if they try to move this forward.

Again, you assume its a guy in a basement. More often than not (at least for code that is actually useful), its not the case.

Besides lost time, the fact that code was unavailable for possible futural employers to look at, the fact that the volunteer was publicly pointed out as a copyright infringer and may not feel comfortable continuing his pet project? Heck, just the stress of it all is quite easy to prove and quantify.

Meanwhile I actually read the DMCA from Qualcomm, and it seems that - in most cases - the claim seems legit. Well, for the cases that aren't, you have your *public repo* with your name on it linking to a frivolous DMCA claim. While the claim itself is perfectly legal, advertising it may constitute libel if the claim is bogus. Also, if the files aren't accessible, they are depriving you of your intellectual property, by claiming its theirs. You already have a ton of posts on this thread explaining in detail why when someone states they're the legitimate copyright owner in a DMCA claim when that is false is - by itself - a crime.

There is no lawsuit. There is a DMCA complaint. If it is publicly displayed and its proved wrong, its libel, and grounds for suing. If the DMCA complaint itself violates the law, its grounds for suing. But I'd be very surprised to see Qualcomm taking anyone to court - you see, that kind of move scares away their customers that use Qualcomm code and semiconductors. This is usually settled fast (outside the court system) and silently.

...yet. And Venezuela isn't a politically stable country. I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later those Colo companies were nationalized.

They are still liable for the damages caused by their good faith claim. As anyone that is wrongfully accused of a crime.

Not really. If you can prove that Qualcomm's false DMCA claim caused you harm (financially, psicologically, etc), you're getting jack and his wife. Public perception frowns upon "big companies abusing the little guy", so I'd expect this to not even go to court and to be settled with a non-disclosure clause, as it is common practice.

Imagine this - you go to court to prove the code is yours, and its an actual part of Qualcomm's product line, to such an extent they thought they owned it. They caused you harm *while* benefiting from your unpaid work. An you think they would stand a chance in an appeal/counter suit? Now imagine its your pet project, and you subtly change the license to forbit explicit usage from Qualcomm from the get-go, while the process carries on? Then its possible for you to actually slap them with a DMCA claim of your own, and even *gasp*, prove it in court.

The actual news seems like Qualcomm hired some IP firm that doesn't know shit about code and found automatically some "infringing" files. If this is the case, they will do everything to avoid going to court, regardless of the number of lawyers on staff, while silently settling the case with the IP company. And this shit keeps happening because no one bothers into taking it to court.

My favourite banjo song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You are right, I wasn't aware of that. But it doesn't change the argument - it does not constitute a commercial contract (you're not paying for services or goods). And it is responsability of the receiver (or more commonly, his employer) to actually comply with the tax law. Even in the US, receiving a tip is not illegal. Not declaring it in your IRS may be, but - by itself - is perfectly legal as an act.

It is the difference between an exchange and a donation. In the country where I reside, tips are "tax free" (and exempt from declaration) upto 75 Eur. This includes the money your grandmother gives you. If it is over 75Eur, it is considered income and it is taxed appropriately. Oddly enough, giving 2 times 75Eur to the same person still is tax-free.

It depends on the relevancy for the case. And seizing of property usually requires a court order - both in US and UK - and I will tackle the civil forfeiture next.

Well, yes and no. They could do it anyway, if a judge signs. In my country, if you commit tax fraud, this is done automatically - via a judge. The scope of civil forfeiture is quite limited, and I'd assume they must really have strong clues to use it (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981), because regardless of what happens, authorities are liable for every damage caused by unfunded accusations/wrongful/abusive confiscations, as most countries have something related to the presumption of innocence in their constitution.

2 Suggestions - stop reading fox news as actual facts, It would not impede anything. I don't own a car. The notion that people need cars to survive is stupid.

And, for each example you may find, you have hundreds that were exactly the opposite - the "bad" guys were at fault. If you have a - lets assume - 3% - error rate on a major american city, that is a huge success rate. You should see it in perspective, not the isolated cases that are the anomalies.

The FG reference is quite ingenious, but wrong. You should check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... to have an idea of the paperwork necessary to legally produce porn.

I'm not saying authorities never fail. I'm saying it is not breaking the law, as whoever is involved in this will find out sooner or later in court. But I'd be surprised if the news is acurrate (most news aren't).

Well, they would not need to. The onus of intent or proof lies within the accuser. Even if they got fined/identified/whatever, in the end its up to the authorities to make proof that it was, in fact, an illegal transaction.

He would not. The friend would not engage on the activity motivated by monetary compensation, and the $20 isn't payment, its a tip. And this is legal in most countries. You are liable for services you've been paid for, not tipped for. As an extreme example, there is a huge difference between a commercial agreement regarding sexual intercourse (soliciting, as you're *bidding* for the service) and giving a tip - either in money or goods. The first one is a prostitute, the second one is a fuckfriend/girlfriend.

I still support some Delphi 7.0 applications I built decade ago. Yeah, a decade ago, Delphi 7.0 was *already* "obsolete". They still work today, they still produce actual meaningful results. Try using a VB6 application (or a C++ application) from the same period on a modern windows system. You'd be surprised how well designed Delphi is. And Embarcadero really did everything they could to make sure the product would die.